Sorry, the quoted message below should say "Ajith wrote", not myself;
it was an artifact of my forwarding of the original message.
Jacek
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 15:24 +0100, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Ajith,
>
> On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 11:48 +0100, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> > A similar text to the following may be needed to make things clear.
> >
> > "In order to define semantics that apply to inputs and outputs of an
> > operation, input and output elements can also be annotated with the
> > model reference. This is equivalent to adding model references to the
> > relevant schema element and should be interpreted accordingly. If the
> > element has an annotation already, in the scope of this operation it
> > is considered to have both the input/output level annotation and the
> > element specific annotations."
>
> There is a problem with "this is equivalent to adding model references
> to the relevant schema element". In particular, consider this scenario:
>
> <types>
> <schema>
> <element name="ack"/>
> </schema>
> </types>
> <interface>
> <operation name="a">
> <output element="ack" modelReference="a_ack" />
> </operation>
> <operation name="b">
> <output element="ack" modelReference="b_ack" />
> </operation>
> </interface>
>
> This would be equivalent to
> <element name="ack" modelReference="a_ack b_ack"/>
> which is not what you want, if I understand it correctly.
>
> Apart from this, your proposal sounds reasonable, yet I would like to
> see more details - in particular, how exactly would your modelReferences
> on the two ack outputs differ? Can you please give us the WSDL annotated
> with any SAWSDL annotations that you would use there, so it's clearer
> what exactly you want to do with them?
>
> Best regards,
> Jacek
>
>